1  I 

I   ! 


^OF-CAtlFO/?^  ^  -UNIVERS/^ 


I   3 


S   ^ 


§ 
B 

%.      .# 


?    S/ 
1    1 
£    1 


. 


^Of-CttlfORto 

§ 


dOS-ANCElfj>  ^l-LIBRARYOc         ^UIBRARYQx:  A\\E-UNIVER% 

t   SUIT*  Siirrs  |t^|  f/gr" 

^  CC    -w— »»     ft    \   r—          ^f   \    A^ 

rn  S? 


There  is  none  ever  feared  that  the  truth  should  be  heard 
But  him  whom  the  truth  would  indict. 

—Robert  Burns. 


Persecution! 


OR 


The  Attempt  to  Suppress  Freedom 
of  Speech  in  Chicago 


A  Lecture  Delivered    Before 

The     Independent     Religious 

Society,       (Rationalist) 

Chicago 


By 
M.  M.  MANGASARIAN 


Nobody  fears  for  the  safety  of  a  mountain, 
but  a  hillock  of  sand  may  be  washed  away. 
Blow  then,  O  ye  priests,  for  the  hillock  is  in 
danger. 

—THOMAS  PAINE. 


StacK 
Annex 


persecution! 

or 

attempt  to  Suppress  freedom 
of  Speecb  in  dbtcago 


I  intend  to  take  for  my  text  the  resolution  of  the  man- 
agers of  the  Orchestral  Association  to  evict  us  from  this  hall, 
in  which  for  the  past  five  years  our  Society  has  held  its  Sun- 
day morning  meetings,  to  present  to  this  audience  a  study 
of  religious  persecution  in  Chicago  in  the  Twentieth  Century. 
As  I  do  not  wish  to  build  on  hearsay  or  mere  gossip,  my  first 
duty  will  be  to  "make  good"  my  text,  which  I  shall  do  by 
reciting  briefly  the  species  facti — the  facts  in  the  case.  Is  it 
really  true  that  the  directors  of  this  public  hall,  built  by  gen- 
eral subscription,  and  built  as  a  secular  hall,  for  musical, 
dramatic  and  educational  purposes — and  not  as  a  church  or 
a  synagogue — have  actually  passed  a  resolution  denying  its 
further  use  to  this  Society?  We  have  in  our  possession  an 
official  communication  from  the  Orchestral  Association  to  that 
effect.  It  reads : 

"The  trustees  of  the  Orchestral  Association  have  decided 
to  use  Orchestra  Hall  for  other  purposes  Sundays  of  next 
season  and  I  shall  be  unable  therefore  to  renew  the  lease  of 
the  Independent  Religious  Society." 

In  reply  to  this  notice,  which  is  signed  by  the  manager  of 
the  Orchestral  Association,  the  Independent  Religious  Society 
pleaded  with  the  trustees  to  reconsider  their  resolution,  which 
brought  from  them  a  second  communication,  as  follows : 

"The  trustees  have  decided  not  to  reconsider  the  question." 

Thus,  it  will  be  seen  that  on  the  expiration  of  our  lease  on 
the  last  day  of  May  of  the  present  year,  Orchestra  Hall  will 
no  longer  be  available  for  the  purposes  of  Rationalism. 

3 


That  point  being  disposed  of,  the  next  question  is:  What 
prompted  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Orchestral  Association 
to  take  this  action  against  the  Independent  Religious  Society  ? 
A  landlord  may  have  many  valid  reasons  for  refusing  to  renew 
a  lease  with  a  former  tenant.  But  if  the  question  is  one  of 
more  rent,  the  tenant  who  has  paid  his  rent  punctually,  and 
has  been  an  occupant  of  the  premises  for  many  years,  is  en- 
titled, unless  there  are  objections  to  him  on  other  grounds,  to, 
at  least,  an  equal  chance  with  any  prospective  tenant  to  bid 
for  the  lease  of  the  property.  I  doubt  whether  there  is  a 
high  class  business  man  in  any  city  who  will  close  a  deal  with 
a  new  applicant  for  his  property  over  the  head  of  an  old  and 
tried  tenant,  without  first  proposing  to  the  latter  the  terms 
he  is  willing  to  accept  from  the  former.  Unless,  of  course, 
as  I  intimated,  there  are  ulterior  reasons  which  make  the  old 
tenant  undesirable  at  any  price.  It  will  also  be  admitted  that 
there  is  not  a  merchant  or  a  banker  who,  upon  learning  that 
the  offices  or  the  store  for  which  he  has  been  paying  rent 
promptly  for  a  number  of  years  has  been  rented  to  some 
one  else  without  any  notice  to  him  whatsoever,  will  not  char- 
acterize such  treatment  as  extraordinary  and  unbusiness-like. 
If  then,  it  is  the  prevailing  custom — a  custom  approved  of  by 
the  best  people  in  the  business  world — to  respect  the  rights 
of  an  old  tenant,  what  shall  we  think  of  the  landlords  of 
Orchestra  Hall,  who,  after  receiving  rent  from  us  for  five 
years,  refuse  us  even  the  courtesy  to  tell  us  definitely  why 
this  hall  is  no  longer  available  for  our  purposes?  They  have 
not  asked  us  for  more  rent.  We  have  offered  to  pay  as  much 
as  any  other  tenant  is  willing  to  pay.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, their  refusal  to  accept  our  bid,  and  their  resolution 
to  hand  the  hall  over  to  our  competitors  can  only  mean  one 
thing :  They  are  not  disposed  to  be  fair  to  us. 

In  the  meantime,  we  were  entitled  to  some  consideration 
from  the  directors  of  this  hall.  When  Orchestra  Hall  was  first 
opened  to  the  public,  there  was  a  great  deal  of  adverse  criti- 
cism its  managers  had  to  contend  with.  The  acoustics  were 
very  defective;  the  ventilation  was  poor;  the  ascent  to  the 
balconies  and  galleries  was  so  steep  that  people  preferred  to 
go  away  rather  than  accept  the  accommodations  they  offered. 

4 


There  was  also  a  report  that  the  hall  was  not  adapted  for 
speaking  purposes,  having  been  built  primarily  for  orchestral 
music.  There  was  still  another  report,  I  do  not  know  to 
what  extent  it  can  be  corroborated  by  the  facts — a  report  that 
Theodore  Thomas  was  so  disappointed  in  the  hall  which  was 
built  for  his  Orchestra,  that  he  worried  himself  sick  over  it — 
a  sickness  from  which,  unfortunately,  he  did  not  recover.  The 
Independent  Religious  Society  took  the  hall  by  the  year,  when 
the  hall  had  neither  friends  nor  a  reputation — when  it  was 
still  in  the  experimental  stage,  needing  many  repairs  and 
changes,  and  when  its  great  organ  was  still  incomplete.  We 
were  the  first  people  to  use  the  hall  for  speaking  purposes, 
and  it  was  three  or  four  years  later  that  the  Sunday  Evening 
Club,  following  our  example,  began  holding  services  here. 

The  Independent  Religious  Society  helped  the  Orchestral 
Association  to  overcome  the  popular  prejudice  against  the  hall, 
and  gave  the  managers  an  opportunity  to  make  improvements. 
I  remember  very  well  that  the  first  Sunday  I  spoke  in  this 
hall,  more  than  one  half  of  my  audience  complained  that  they 
could  not  hear  me.  The  acoustics  were,  indeed,  so  imperfect, 
that  we  ran  the  risk  of  losing  our  audience  by  remaining  in 
Orchestra  Hall.  We  suggested  changes  and  made  experi- 
ments by  way  of  bettering  the  conditions  at  Orchestra  Hall, 
and  finally  succeeded,  with  the  co-operation  of  the  manage- 
ment, in  overcoming  these  difficulties.  Being,  as  I  said, 
the  first  to  use  the  hall  Sundays  for  public  purposes,  we  were 
instrumental  in  bringing,  if  I  may  use  a  commercial  term,  a 
great  deal  of  business  to  the  association.  Besides,  we  have 
advertised  the  hall  extensively.  Every  Sunday,  on  the  3,000 
programs  we  issue,  and  in  all  our  publications  of  lectures  and 
books,  Orchestra  Hall  is  announced.  These  considerations 
entitled  us  to  a  more  reasonable  treatment  than  we  have  re- 
ceived. 

As  it  is  not  for  more  rent  that  we  are  being  put  out  of  the 
hall,  the  trustees  should  admit  frankly  that  it  is  for  our 
religious  views?  Why  do  they  not?  They  are  afraid.  To 
strike  openly  at  one  of  the  fundamental  institutions  of  this 
country,  namely,  the  liberty  of  teaching,  requires  a  boldness 
which  they  lack.  They  realize  that  the  spirit  of  the  age  is 

5 


squarely  against  such  discrimination  or  class  legislation.  They 
feel  also  that  they  are  dishonoring  a  great  country,  America, — 
born  of  the  brain  and  fed  from  the  breast  of  a  Washington, 
a  Jefferson,  a  Benjamin  Franklin,  a  Thomas  Paine — and  its 
more  recent  representative,  Abraham  Lincoln — not  one  of 
whom  was  a  communicant  or  a  member  of  any  church,  and 
not  one  of  whom  but  would  frown  upon  anything  that  smacks 
of  persecution.  The  directors  of  the  Orchestral  Association 
have  preferred  to  be  the  hireling  of  the  priest — Catholic  or 
Protestant — the  priest  of  a  cult  imported  from  Asia,  rather  than 
to  be  Americans,  worthy  of  their  great  ancestors,  whose  names 
I  have  just  mentioned.  The  real  objection  to  us  then,  is  not 
that  we  do  not  pay  enough  rent,  but  that  we  do  not  profess 
the  same  faith.  Religion,  not  money,  is  the  reason  for  our 
eviction  from  this  hall,  but  they  are  afraid  and  ashamed  to 
own  it. 

The  two  or  three  trustees  who,  according  to  report,  moved, 
seconded  and  carried  the  motion  to  put  us  out  of  these  pre- 
mises have  admitted  that  our  "religious  views  are  not  satis- 
factory to  the  established  churches."  The  inference  being, 
that  the  established  churches  had  made  up  their  minds  to 
punish  us  for  not  agreeing  with  them  theologically.  These 
same  directors,  later,  changed  their  explanation,  and  declared 
that  it  was  for  "business  reasons"  that  a  new  tenant  was 
desired.  Yet  the  case  is  quite  clear.  It  needs  no  interpre- 
tation. I  am  not  going  to  base  my  remarks  upon  rumors; 
the  inner  story  is  made  manifest  by  the  facts :  We  have  had 
this  hall  for  five  years;  we  are  in  possession  of  it  now  for 
Sunday  morning  lectures ;  we  are  willing  to  pay  as  much  rent 
for  it  as  our  competitors ;  what  are  the  business  reasons  which 
make  our  eviction  from  this  hall  imperative?  It  appears  that 
when  Orchestra  Hall  was  being  built,  some  of  the  contributors 
demanded  and  secured  a  promise  from  the  managers,  not  to 
allow  the  Theodore  Thomas  Orchestra  to  give  public  recitals 
on  Sundays.  These  pious  contributors,  while  they  were  in- 
terested in  music,  were  more  interested  in  the  Sabbath.  Ac- 
cording to  this  understanding,  no  orchestral  music  is  per- 
mitted in  the  hall  on  Sundays.  We  learn  that  the  Associa- 
tion's recent  appeal  for  funds  with  which  to  wipe  out  its  in- 


debtedness,  gave  the  pious  contributors  an  opportunity  to  im- 
pose a  second  embargo  upon  the  management  of  this  hall,  by  de- 
manding that  in  addition  to  the  prohibition  against  orchestral 
music  on  Sundays,  the  trustees  shall  adopt  measures  to  sup- 
press also  the  Independent  Religious  Society.  If  this  is  done, 
and  Orchestra  Hall  is  redeemed  from  the  stigma  of  our  blas- 
phemies, the  amount  needed  to  cancel  the  mortgage  on  the 
building  will  be  forthcoming.  The  trustees  of  this  building, 
having  bowed  down  to  these  contributors  once,  bowed  down 
to  them  a  second  time,  and  this  time  much  lower.  They  sold 
their  consciences  and  also  the  hall,  to  the  friends  of  the  Asiatic 
Sabbath  and  the  enemies  of  America — for  if  America  means 
anything  it  means  liberty. 

Has  this  Society  any  grounds  for  legal  proceedings  against 
the  three  or  four  directors  who  are  the  authors  of  this  objec- 
tionable piece  of  business?  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
about  that.  But  after  much  deliberation  in  my  own  mind,  I 
have  concluded,  speaking  for  myself  alone,  of  course,  that  I 
would  rather  appeal  to  the  American  people — the  court  of  pub- 
lic opinion — than  go  to  law  about  it.  In  the  cause  of  Rational- 
ism, the  pen  is  a  more  effective  weapon  than  either  the  law  or 
the  sword.  I  am  a  jealous  man  and  I  do  not  wish  legal  or  phy- 
sical measures  to  share  with  reason  the  credit  for  the  progress 
of  our  cause.  Let  not  our  movement  be  under  any  obligations 
to  the  courts,  to  custom — to  the  throne,  or  to  violence  of  any 
description.  Of  course,  I  do  not  believe  in  turning  also  the 
other  cheek.  I  am  not  a  convert  to  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance.  I  am  a  soldier,  and  I  carry  a  sword.  But  my 
sword  is  the  pen.  Blood  flows  from  the  sword;  light  from  the 
pen.  When  a  few  months  ago,  the  elevated  railway  author- 
ities in  Chicago  covered  our  advertisements  to  please  their 
Catholic  patrons,  perhaps  we  should  have  gone  to  law  about  it ; 
and  perhaps  again  in  the  present  instance,  when  three  or  four 
men,  to  please  the  fanatics,  who  are  alarmed  about  their  creeds, 
close  a  public  hall  against  a  large  organization  like  ours,  we 
should  invoke  the  arm  of  the  law.  But  a  victory  gained  in 
the  courts  cannot  help  our  cause,  which  is  the  cause  of  enlight- 
enment, as  a  victory  gained  at  the  bar  of  public  opinion.  The 
latter  victory  requires  more  time,  but  when  it  arrives,  it  is 
final. 

7 


To  prevent  Theodore  Parker  from  speaking  in  Boston,  some 
seventy-five  years  ago,  even  the  Unitarians  closed  their 
churches  against  him.  The  preachers  asked  God  in  public 
to  put  a  hook  in  Parker's  tongue  that  he  might  not  utter 
blasphemies.  Parker  did  not  go  to  law  about  it.  A  few 
business  men  in  Boston  who  believed  in  fair  play,  and  who 
were  the  very  opposite  in  courage  .and  character  to  the  trus- 
tees of  this  hall,  met  in  a  hotel  and  passed  the  following  reso- 
lution. I  want  you  to  compare  it  with  the  resolution  of  the 
Orchestral  Association.  The  resolution  of  the  Boston  busi- 
ness men  reads: 

"Resolved,  that  Theodore  Parker  shall  have  a  chance  to  be 
heard  in  Boston." 

You  may  search  in  the  Old  South  Church  in  Boston,  to-day, 
or  in  its  magnificent  library,  but  you  will  not  find  any  where 
a  prouder  document.  It  is  one  of  the  assets  of  our  American 
civilization.  And  to-day  while  the  churches  which  slammed 
their  doors  in  Parker's  face,  and  the  landlords  who  refused 
their  halls  to  him,  and  the  "holy"  men  of  God,  who  cursed  him 
in  their  pulpits,  are  ashamed  of  themselves  and  their  religion, 
all  the  world  is  proud  of  that  group  of  business  men  who  de- 
fended freedom  of  speech  against  the  cohorts  of  fear  and 
fanaticism.  That  is  the  kind  of  victory  that  tells. 


In  making  a  diagnosis  of  the  disease  known  as  persecu- 
tion, we  find  that  the  persecutor  never  admits  that  he  is  per- 
secuting. Even  when,  as  in  former  times,  he  is  frying  or 
roasting  his  neighbor  in  the  fire,  he  protests  that  he  is  only 
loving  him.  That  is  one  of  the  symptoms  of  the  disease. 
While  the  persecutor  is  engaged  in  the  act  of  stretching  his 
victim  on  the  rack,  he  is  addressing-  him  in  the  gentlest,  kindest, 
and  softest  language  conceivable.  He  is  torturing  his  neigh- 
bor for  the  love  of  God,  and  not  for  any  "business  reasons." 
The  persecutor  never  looks  more  like  a  saint  than  when  he  is 
playing  the  devil's  part.  In  religion  this  is  called  piety;  in 
the  secular  world,  it  goes  by  the  name  of  diplomacy.  When  a 
king  is  most  active  in  preparation  for  war,  he  is  sure  to  be 
loudest  in  his  praise  of  peace.  Monopolists  pose  as  public 


benefactors  when  they  are  most  agressive  in  the  violation  of 
the  laws.  In  the  same  way,  religions  are  never  so  eloquent 
in  their  professions  of  tolerance  as  when  they  are  most  un- 
relenting against  the  alien  in  faith.  To  illustrate  this,  let 
us  consider  for  a  moment  the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church 
toward  our  democratic  institutions.  To  hear  the  American 
priests  speak,  one  would  'infer  that  they  regarded  democratic 
institutions  as  almost  divine.  But  the  truth  is  that  Rome  has 
damned  democracy  again  and  again,  and  if  it  had  the  power 
to-day,  it  would  gird  with  the  sword  another  Napoleon  III 
in  France,  and  install  an  American  Napoleon,  if  one  could  be 
found,  in  Washington.  I  am  willing  to  accept  the  challenge 
of  any  man  to  prove  that  to  Roman  Catholicism  which  claims 
to  be  the  mother  and  protectress  of  free  institutions,  liberty 
is  the  forbidden  fruit.  But  the  Protestants  are  not  behind 
the  Catholics  in  affecting  devotion  to  free  institutions,  which, 
I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  equally  counterfeit.  The  Protestant 
directors  of  Orchestra  Hall  no  more  believe  in  free  institutions 
than  do  the  priests  of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  only  profess 
to  believe  in  liberty.  Neither  Protestants  nor  Catholics  really 
believe  in  liberty. 

They  do  not  believe  in  liberty  because  they  do  not  need  it. 
Give  a  Catholic  religious  liberty,  and  what  will  he  do  with  it? 
Give  a  Protestant  liberty  and  what  can  he  do  with  it?  What 
can  a  man  who  holds  in  his  hand  the  infallible  word  of  God 
do  with  liberty?  How  is  he  going  to  use  it?  Is  he  going  to 
use  his  liberty  to  improve,  or  correct,  or  change,  or  suppress, 
or  add  to,  or  differ  from,  or  protest  against,  the  infallible  word 
of  his  Maker?  Is  he  going  to  use  his  liberty  to  produce  a 
Bible  of  his  own?  Is  he  going  to  use  his  liberty  to  investi- 
gate the  Deity?  Neither  Protestants  nor  Catholics  need 
liberty;  and  not  needing  it  for  themselves,  they  are  the  last 
persons  in  the  world  to  go  to  any  trouble  to  secure  it  for  you. 
It  is  equally  true  that  people  who  do  not  need  liberty,  do 
not  want  the  truth.  Indeed,  people  who  have  no  liberty  cannot 
have  the  truth.  And  it  is  as  evident  as  a  mathematical  demon- 
stration that  people  who  do  not  want  the  truth  for  themselves 
have  no  respect  for,  or  sympathy  with,  those  to  whom  the  pur- 
suit of  truth  is  a  great  happiness.  To  illustrate  my  thought: 

9 


Suppose  we  wished  to  know  how  many  seats  there  were  in 
this  hall.  The  only  way  to  find  out  would  be  to  count  them. 
But  if  we  are  not  allowed  to  count  the  seats,  the  inevitable 
inference  would  be  that  the  truth  about  the  capacity  of  this 
hall  is  not  wanted.  It  is  impossible  to  wiggle  out  of  that  con- 
clusion. If  the  churches  desired  the  truth  about  the  Bible, 
why  do  they  not  let  us  discuss  it  freely  and  without  fear  of 
heresy  trials  and  excommunications?  They  do  not  want  us 
to  know  the  truth  about  the  Bible.  A  moment's  reflection,  as 
you  see,  tears  the  mask  from  the  faces  of  these  professors  of 
freedom  of  thought  and  speech !  Reason,  the  great  unmasker, 
is  after  them,  and  they  are  alarmed.  Both  Catholics  and 
Protestants  take  the  holy  name  of  liberty  in  vain. 

But  if  it  is  neither  liberty  nor  truth  that  the  supporters  of 
the  creeds  need  or  desire,  what  is  all  this  commotion  about? 
Why  are  they  so  active,  and  why  so  agitated?  Again  I  am 
going  to  use  an  illustration:  Suppose  a  report  were  in  circu- 
lation that  this  hall  seated  ten  thousand  people.  The  only 
way  to  prevent  people  from  doubting  that  report,  and  to  derive 
every  possible  advantage  from  it,  would  be  to  make  it  a  pun- 
ishable act  for  anyone  to  try  to  ascertain  the  actual  seating 
capacity  of  the  hall.  In  the  same  way,  to  prevent  people  from 
questioning  the  divine  origin  of  a  certain  collection  of  anony- 
mous writings,  free  thought  must  be  denounced  as  treason 
against  society.  It  is  a  certain  opinion  about  the  Bible,  and 
not  the  truth  about  the  Bible,  that  the  churches  are  interested 
in  upholding.  Their  fight  is  not  for  the  truth,  but  for  the 
creed.  It  might  be  replied  that  they  believe  the  creed  to  be 
the  truth.  Why,  then,  do  they  fear  free  speech?  Can  free 
speech  hurt  the  truth  ?  It  might  the  creed.  It  has.  But  show 
us  one  instance  where  a  simple  truth  has  been  killed  by  liberty 
of  thought  and  expression.  The  churches  do  not  enjoy  our 
prosperity  here — not  because  they  think  we  are  hurting  the 
truths  of  history,  science  and  life — but  because  we  are  hurting 
the  dogmas  of  the  churches,  dogmas  which  fear  ventilation. 
The  Protestant  preacher  is  sworn  to  defend — the  creed;  the 
Catholic  is  sworn  to  defend  the  church;  the  Rationalist  is 
bound  by  the  everlasting  law  of  honor  to  sacrifice  both  creed 
and  church  to  the  truth. 

10 


But  let  us  continue :  The  severity  of  the  persecution  is  al- 
ways in  proportion  to  the  tenability  of  the  creed.  If  the  creed 
is  very  difficult  to  believe  in,  the  persecution  has  to  be  very 
severe ;  if  the  creed  is  more  or  less  rational,  little  or  no  violence 
would  be  necessary  to  enforce  it.  This  is  very  interesting. 
You  do  not  have  to  whip  a  man,  for  instance,  to  make  him  be- 
lieve that  a  day  in  June  can  be  rare,  or  that  a  loving  kiss 
makes  the  heart  leap  forth ;  but  you  have  to  get  after  him  with 
a  crowbar — with  halter  and  thumbscrew — fagot  and  fire — to 
make  him  believe  that  three  Gods  make  one  God,  and  one  God 
makes  three  Gods.  The  severity  of  the  persecution  is  deter- 
mined by  the  degree  of  credibility  of  the  belief.  Judaism  and 
Christianity  have  shed  more  blood  than  either  Confucianism 
or  Buddhism,  for  the  reason  that  the  dogmas  of  the  former 
were  more  incredible.  Tallyrand,  the  French  statesman,  says, 
that  "Spain  is  a  country  where  two  and  two  make  five."  And 
the  Spanish  Inquisition  claims  the  credit  for  that !  It  takes  an 
instrument  like  the  Holy  Inquisition,  with  its  torture  chambers, 
and  its  daily  burnings  of  men  and  women,  to  work  such  a 
miracle.  I  have  always  maintained  that  not  a  drop  of  blood 
would  ever  have  been  shed  in  the  name  of  religion  had  its 
teachings  been  reasonable.  There  would  have  been  no  need  for 
a  Catholic  Inquisition  in  Spain;  a  Protestant  Inquisition  in 
Scotland;  the  massacre  of  Huguenots  in  France;  and  Puritan 
outrages  against  helpless  women  in  America,  had  the  creeds 
complied  with  common  sense.  Persecution  is  the  only  argu- 
ment that  can  keep  an  absurd  opinion  alive.  There  is  the 
story  of  persecution  in  a  nutshell.  It  takes  reasoning  to  con- 
vince mankind  of  the  rotundity  of  the  earth,  or  of  the  law  of 
gravitation.  But  it  takes  violence — force,  fire,  hell  and  devils, 
to  convince  the  world  that  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  a  virgin, 
and  that  those  who  do  not  so  believe  it  will  be  burned  in  sul- 
phur and  fire  forever. 

But  there  is  no  such  persecution  in  America  today,  you 
will  hear  people  say.  Of  course  not.  Let  us  suppose  that  a 
man  who  has  been  stealing  a  thousand  dollars  a  week  from 
his  employer  when  business  was  prosperous,  is  now  stealing 
only  ten  or  twenty,  because  business  is  poor.  Would  that 
prove  that  he  is  now  a  reformed  thief?  When  he  stole  a 

ii 


thousand  dollars,  he  only  stole  as  much  as  the  business  al- 
lowed, and  when  he  steals  only  ten  dollars,  he  steals  as  much 
as  the  business  allows.  In  the  same  way,  religions  always 
persecute  as  much  as  public  sentiment  will  allow.  They  perse- 
cute to  the  extent  of  their  ability  and  opportunity.  Show 
me  when  Protestantism  had  the  opportunity  to  persecute,  and 
did  not  do  so.  Religions  today  cannot  take  our  lives,  but  they 
can  close  a  public  hall  against  us.  And  the  fact  that  they 
have  done  this  proves  that  they  are  still  persecuting  to  the 
extent  of  their  ability.  Indeed,  the  peasants  of  Southern 
Europe,  who,  during  the  middle  ages,  steeped  in  ignorance  and 
superstition,  tore  the  shingles  off  their  cottages  with  which 
to  burn  a  John  Huss,  or  a  Giordano  Bruno,  at  the  stake,  were 
not  greater  persecutors  than  the  Chicago  clergy  and  business 
men  who,  in  the  Twentieth  Century — after  Darwin,  after  Vol- 
taire, after  the  discovery  of  America,  after  the  Declaration  of 
Independence — in  America,  the  world's  asylum  for  the  op- 
pressed— will  let  the  Sunday  Evening  Club  have  this  hall  for 
Christian  preaching,  but  refuse  it  to  us  because  we  do  not 
pronounce  their  shibboleth !  The  church  could  burn  people  in 
the  fourteenth  century.  She  burned  them.  She  cannot  burn 
people  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  but  she  can  evict  them  from 
a  public  hall,  and  she  does  so.  What  is  the  difference?  She 
has  the  will ;  she  lacks  only  the  opportunity. 

But  is  refusing  this  hall  to  us  persecution?  Let  us  see. 
Instead  of  being  the  Independent  Religious  Society,  let  us 
suppose  that  we  are  an  independent  oil  company,  and  that 
we  have  been  holding  our  own  against  the  larger  and  con- 
solidated oil  company,  with  its  enormous  capitalization.  One 
morning  we  learn  that  the  bigger  concern  has  opened  a  branch 
in  the  same  building  with  us,  and  a  short  time  later  we  are 
ordered  by  the  landlords  to  seek  quarters  elsewhere,  as  the 
consolidated  concern  needs  the  entire  building  for  its  own 
uses.  Suppose  also  that  the  management  refused  to  accept 
a  bid  from  us  for  the  renewal  of  our  lease,  although  we  offered 
to  pay  as  much  as  our  competitor.  What  would  that  be  ?  The 
United  States  government  is  on  the  alert  to  stop  the  en- 
croachments of  corporations  which  operate  in  restraint  of 
trade.  Is  there  not  a  United  States  of  public  opinion  that  will 

12 


say  to  the  religious  trust,  with  more  millions  behind  it  than 
the  Standard  Oil  commands :  "You  have  a  thousand  churches 
and  halls  to  sell  your  goods  in ;  you  have  a  thousand  preach- 
ers and  agents  to  market  your  product ;  you  have  all  the 
presses  of  the  country  to  print  and  circulate  your  literature; 
you  command  the  metropolitan  newspapers ;  you  have  the 
bankers  and  dry-goods  merchants  enlisted  in  your  service — 
why  do  you  envy  this  independent  concern  its  one  opportunity 
to  conduct  its  business  and  to  live;  why  do  you  wish  to  drive 
it  out  of  business?  And  why  do  you  covet  your  neighbor's 
property,  which  you  do  by  seizing  its  location  and  offices?" 
Is  there  not,  I  say,  an  American  court  of  public  opinion  that 
shall  say  to  the  religious  monopoly:  "Play  fair."  The  gov- 
ernment can  fight  the  American  Tobacco  and  Standard  Oil 
trusts ;  let  us  fight  the  greater  monopoly — the  monopoly  that 
operates  in  restraint  of  the  commerce  of  ideas,  by  pinching  the 
brain  and  gagging  the  mouth  of  every  American.  Why  does 
not  the  nation  rise  against  this  more  dangerous  monopoly? 
Because,  unlike  other  monopolies,  this  is  a  "holy"  monopoly. 
Holy  Monopoly !  "Beware  of  things  called  'holy.'  "  The  Holy 
Inquisition !  The  Holy  Roman  Empire !  The  Holy  Alliance ! 
Holy  Russia !  Holy  Bible !  I  add  to  this  list  now  another — 
Holy  Monopoly! 

But  the  churches  cannot  afford  to  "fight  fair."  It  has  re- 
quired twenty  centuries  of  war  and  persecution  to  keep  their 
creeds  alive.  I  am  not  exaggerating  when  I  say  that  these 
creeds  are  literally  drunk  with  the  blood  they  have  shed.  The 
shame  and  the  pity  of  it !  In  fifty  years  of  time,  Charles  Dar- 
win revolutionized  the  thought  of  the  whole  world  without 
the  shedding  of  a  drop  of  blood.  There  is  a  record  to  envy! 
Let  the  churches  cover  their  faces  with  their  hands.  Science 
needs  only  the  pen.  Religion  sneaks  behind  the  army,  the 
throne,  the  Inquisition — for  protection.  To  bolster  up  ortho- 
doxy, Rationalism  must  be  gagged,  and  the  Independent 
Religious  Society  evicted  from  its  hall.  What  sensible  and 
honorable  man  who  has  ever  thought  of  the  matter,  and  in 
whose  veins  flows  the  blood  of  the  world's  saviors,  would  not 
prefer  to  be  persecuted  rather  than  to  belong  to  a  church  that 
has  made  history  crimsoi}. 

13 


Another  symptom  of  the  disease  we  are  studying  is  that,  it 
never  breaks  out  in  a  man  except  when  he  is  in  the  majority, 
or  in  power.  Persecution  is  always  directed  against  the  weak. 
This,  in  itself,  is  enough  to  give  it  a  black  eye.  It  is  the  metier, 
or  trade  of  a  poltroon.  No  really  fine  man  can  take  any  pleas- 
ure in  it.  Noblesse  oblige!  The  University  of  Oxford  ex- 
pelled a  young  man  whose  name  was  Shelley,  at  the  age  of 
nineteen,  on  a  charge  of  heresy.  A  great  university  against 
a  mere  lad!  Noblesse  oblige.  The  Pope  of  Rome,  about 
three  hundred  years  ago,  dragged  a  poor  prisoner,  emaciated 
by  long  confinement  in  the  dungeons  of  the  church,  to  the 
Catnpo  di  Fiori  and  burned  him  alive.  An  infallible  pope 
against  an  unfortunate  student!  Noblesse  oblige.  The  power- 
ful John  Calvin,  master  of  Switzerland  and  pope  of  Geneva, 
pounced  upon  a  stranger  in  one  of  the  pews  of  his  cathedral 
church,  and  made  kindling  wood  out  of  him  for  his  parish- 
ioners to  warm  their  hands  against.  Noblesse  oblige!  Ah,  if 
the  gods  had  only  inspired  their  children  with  that  sentiment! 
If  the  Orchestra  Hall  directors  wish  to  persecute  anybody, 
there  is  the  Sunday  Evening  Club  of  churches — powerful,  in- 
fluential, rich,  and  able  to  strike  back.  Or  let  them  persecute 
the  Roman  Catholics.  Deny  the  use  of  the  hall  to  them !  When 
the  Catholics  were  weak  they  were  persecuted  in  all  the 
Protestant  countries,  but  today,  who  would  dare  to  discrimi- 
nate against  them?  If  I  were  an  archbishop  I  would  be  let 
alone. 

But  even  against  the  weak,  the  church  never  fights  fair! 
If  the  Christian  people  of  Chicago,  for  instance,  wished  to  ar- 
rest the  progress  of  Rationalism,  their  challenge  to  it  must  be 
open  and  above  board.  They  must  not  try  to  strike  it  from 
under  cover,  or  from  behind  screens.  They  must  down  its 
arguments  with  arguments,  and  not  with  money  or  prestige 
or  strategy.  And  they  must  not  seek  to  tie  its  hands  before 
they  condescend  to  measure  their  strength  against  it.  Suppose 
I  were  to  be  challenged  to  a  duel  in  which  I  had  to  accept  such 
terms  and  conditions  as  my  antagonist  offered  without  giving 
me  any  voice  in  the  matter  at  all.  That  would  not  be  a  duel ; 
that  would  be  murder.  Fight  fair!  Unfortunately,  however, 
the  church  has  never,  never  fought  fair.  Did  the  churches 

14 


believe  that  they  could  win  by  fighting  fair,  they  would  never 
have  resorted  to  persecution. 

It  might  be  asked  that  if  the  churches,  which  are  in  control 
of  the  situation,  do  not  believe  in  liberty  of  thought,  how  did 
we  come  to  have  any  liberty  at  all?  In  a  sense,  it  is  true  that 
we  owe  what  liberty  we  have  to  the  churches.  If  the  churches 
agreed  among  themselves  and  pulled  together,  Rationalism 
would  not  have  the  ghost  of  a  chance  for  free  expression.  To- 
day the  Protestants  call  the  Catholics  idolators,  for  worship- 
ing the  host;  and  the  Catholics  call  the  Protestants  blasphem- 
ers for  not  worshiping  the  host.  In  the  Episcopal  litany  one 
of  the  prayers  asked  for  protection  against  the  Turk  and  the 
pop  e.  From  a  selfish  point  of  view,  I  am  glad  these  two 
powerful  religious  corporations  are  "at  daggers'  point."  It  is 
our  only  safety.  Goodness!  If  they  were  to  cease  fighting 
with  one  another  and  turned  their  guns  upon  us,  what  would 
happen  to  us  ?  What  would  happen  to  the  twentieth  century  ? 
We  are  indebted  for  what  religious  liberty  there  is  in  Amer- 
ica today  to  the  sectarian  divisions  among  Protestants  and 
the  incurable  breach  between  Rome  and  Protestantism.  If  I 
prayed  at  all,  my  morning  and  evening  petition  would  be : 
"Good  Lord,  do  not  let  the  churches  unite."  The  Sunday 
Evening  Club  is  powerful  today  Because,  in  a  sense,  it  rep- 
resents that  very  union  which  I  dread.  They  could  not  take 
the  hall  from  us  as  Presbyterians,  nor  as  Baptists,  nor  as 
Episcopalians,  nor  as  Methodists ;  but  they  are  able  to  do 
together  what  they  were  afraid  to  do  separately.  Some  people 
predict  that  eventually,  in  self-preservation,  the  various 
Protestant  denominations,  and,  perhaps,  even  the  formidable 
Catholic  church,  will  all  be  united  in  one  body.  I  hope  when 
that  day  comes,  the  state  will  be  too  strong  and  too  independ- 
ent to  hand  over  the  reins  of  government  to  the  church. 

What  helps  the  cause  of  the  churches  today  more  than 
anything  else,  more  even  than  persecution,  is  the  inability 
of  the  average  churchman  to  think  straight.  He  has  a  mind, 
but  he  has  not  been  trained  to  use  it  properly.  If  the  people 
could  only  think  logically,  the  fabric  of  Catholicism,  as 
well  as  of  Protestantism,  would  come  down  like  a  house  of 
cards.  Let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean  by  straight  thinking. 

15 


A  Men's  League  is  being  organized  by  The  Sunday  Evening 
Club,  and  I  hold  in  my  hand  one  of  its  circulars.  It  contains 
the  following  important  announcement : 

"This    proposed    organization    is    suggested    as    abso- 
lutely  non-sectarian." 

The  word  "absolutely"  is  in  large,  black  capitals.  Ah ! 
Are  the  churches  really  growing  more  liberal?  We  rub 
our  eyes  and  look  at  the  circular  again,  and  we  find  that 
the  real  object  of  the  organization  is: 

"To  increase  the  influence  of  Christian  citizenship." 
Now  we  understand  what  they  mean  by  "absolutely  non- 
sectarian."  Liberty,  b£g  enough  to  tramscend  the  limits 
of  Christianity  even,  is  beyond  them.  They  are  incapable 
of  seeing  that  Christianity  is  a  sect  too,  and  that  there  are 
in  Chicago  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  who  are  not 
Christians  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  but  who  are  as  much 
interested  in  good  citizenship  as  anybody  else.  But  the 
churches  cannot  see  that  point  because  they  have  not  been 
taught  to  think  straight.  The  anns  of  the  church  are  not 
long  enough  to  embrace  the  whole  community.  The  big 
word  with  them  is  Christianity,  not  humanity ;  God,  not 
man ;  in  other  words,  it  is  not  citizenship  that  the  Sunday 
Evening  Club  is  seeking  to  promote,  but  Christian  citizen- 
ship— that  is  to  say,  sectarian  citizenship — with  its  Puritan 
Sabbath,  and  bible  in  the  Public  Schools.  And  this  they 
call  liberty. 

I  quoted  to  you  some  months  ago  from  the  catalogue  of 
an  American  college,  which  reads: 

"The     college    believes    in    perfect    freedom    of    con- 
science for  all  men." 

We  have  scarcely  finished  applauding  this  magnificent 
declaration  when  we  read  in  the  next  line  that : 

"In    accordance    with    this    principle,    all    students    are 
required  to  attend  morning  prayers  and  the  morning  and 
evening  religious  services  and  the  Bible  classes."* 
The  church  education  actually  ruins  a  man's  reason.    It 
incapacitates  him  for  clear  thinking.      There  are  thousands 
of  men  and  women  whom  the  Sunday  School  and  the  pulpits 

*Robert  College  Catalogue,  1908,  page  17. 
16 


have  made  intellectual  cripples.  But  it  is  defective  or 
crooked  thinking  that  protects  the  church.  The  framers  of 
the  above  catalogue  are,  no  doubt,  honest  men.  I  have  no 
fault  to  find  with  their  hearts,  but  what  about  their  heads? 
How  do  they  propose  to  reconcile  perfect  freedom  of  con- 
science, with  compulsory  attendance  at  bible  classes?  They 
do  not  see  any  difficulty  in  that  at  all.  They  are  satisfied 
to  use  a  popular  phrase — "perfect  freedom  of  conscience" — 
if  they  can  do  so  without  jeopardizing  the  interests  of  their 
creeds.  The  promoters  of  "The  Men's  League  of  The  Sun- 
day Evening  Club,"  no  more  than  the  framers  of  this  college 
catalogue  realize  that  to  call  an  organization  "absolutely 
non-sectarian,"  and  then  to  limit  its  scope  to  making  people 
Christians,  or  to  offer  "perfect  freedom  of  conscience"  to 
students  and  then  to  drive  them  into  your  churches  and 
bible  classes,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms — an  absurdity.  I 
repeat  that  the  worst  curse  of  orthodoxy  is  that  it  destroys 
the  soundness  of  our  minds.  It  twists  reason  out  of  shape. 
To  shout  in  the  ear  of  the  dead  is  not  more  unprofitable  than 
to  try  to  get  a  churchman  to  think  straight.  Most  of  the 
evil  in  the  world  is  not  done  by  wicked  men,  but  by  people 
who,  though  honest,  are  incapable  of  straight  thinking. 

Let  me  give  you  another  illustration  of  crooked  thinking 
which  has  been,  alas,  a  greater  evil  than  anything  else  that 
the  world  has  suffered  from.  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  great 
Catholic  theologian  and  philosopher  defended  persecution 
by  arguing  that : 

"False    coiners   are   put   to   death;   then    why   not    men 

who  tamper  with  immortal   souls."* 

And  that  argument  is  quoted  with  approval  by  all  believ- 
ers in  religious  persecution :  We  would  close  a  gambling 
den  because  it  ruins  men  financially.  How  much  more 
should  we  close  a  hall  in  which  a  man  ruins  souls  eternally? 
If  a  man  who  kills  the  body  is  punished,  why  should  we 
spare  the  blasphemer  who  kills  the  immortal  part  of  man? 
That.  I  repeat,  is  the  kind  of  reasoning  upon  which  is  based 
the  argument  for  violence  against  freedom  of  conscience 
in  matters  of  faith.  But  a  moment's  reflection  will  again 

*C.   S.   P.  Haynes. — Religious  Persecution,  page  34. 


bring  out  the  incapacity  of  even  the  ablest  Christian  who 
has  at  all  passed  through  the  mills  of  the  church,  to  think 
right.  A  false  coiner  knows  that  he  is  robbing  his  neighbor. 
The  heretic,  on  the  other  hand,  believes  honestly,  although 
he  may  be  mistaken,  that  he  is  helping  his  neigh- 
bor. The  counterfeiter  knows  his  money  is  false;  the 
heretic  believes  his  ideas  are  true.  So  you  see  there  is  a 
tremendous  moral  difference  between  a  counterfeiter  and 
a  heretic.  The  latter  may  be  honest ;  the  former  is  always 
a  cheat.  You  can  punish  the  one,  but  you  must  enlighten 
the  other.  Before  a  man  can  be  punished  for  his  beliefs,  it 
has  to  be  shown  that  he  is  dishonest  in  his  beliefs ;  that  he  is 
knowingly  trying  to  damn  the  souls  of  his  neighbors.  And 
the  churchman  begs  the  question  when  he  compares  a  coun- 
terfeiter to  a  Socrates  or  a  Jesus  Christ — both  of  whom 
were  heretics  in  their  day.  Yet  this  one  bit  of  crooked 
reasoning  came  very  near  making  our  earth  a  hell. 

Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  a  more  recent  example 
of  clerical  incapacity  to  think  straight.  A  prominent  minis- 
ter of  one  of  the  established  churches  of  Chicago,  in  a  signed 
communication,  defends  the  action  of  the  directors  of  Or- 
chestra Hall  against  the  Independent  Religious  Society. 
Let  me  -quote  his  exact  words : 

"I  believe  most  thoroughly  in  the  action  of  the  trus- 
tees in  not  allowing  a  man  to  revile  everything  which  is 
religious  and  moral  in  any  hall  which  they  control." 

Another  instance  of  perverse  thinking !  Not  to  agree  with 
this  Reverend  in  religious  matters  is  equivalent,  from  his 
point  of  view,  to  blasphemy.  He  does  not  even  stop  to 
consider  that  in  accusing  me  of  "reviling  everything  which 
is  religious  and  moral,"  he  is  bearing  false  witness  against 
his  neighbor.  He  is  making  a  statement  he  cannot  square 
with  the  facts.  But  he  is  not  interested  in  telling  the  truth. 
He  is  interested  only  in  defending  his  creed.  When  he  was 
ordained,  he  took  an  oath  to  defend — not  the  truth — but  the 
creed.  He  is  living  up  to  his  oath.  I  do  <not  "revile"  any- 
thing, much  less  religion  or  morality.  I  have  investigated, 
examined,  criticized,  but  I  have  "reviled"  nothing.  I  have 
not  criticized  Christianity  for  saying  "love  one  another" ; 
I  have  criticized  it  for  saying:  "He  that  believeth  not  shall 

18 


be  damned."  I  have  not  disagreed  with  the  bible  for  rec- 
ommending purity  of  heart.  I  have  denounced  the  bible  for 
saying:  "He  that  hateth  not  his  father — mother,  wife,  child 
— is  not  worthy  of  me."  It  is  the  bible  as  a  fetish,  and  not 
as  literature  that  we  object  to.  But  if  the  clergyman  were 
to  be  good  enough  to  make  these  fine  and  important  dis- 
tinctions, he  would  be  thinking  straight,  for  which  he  has 
neither  the  taste  nor  the  ability. 

Nor  does  this  preacher  stop  to  consider  that,  if  my  views 
offend  him,  his  views  might  offend  me.  If  I  am  under 
obligations  to  respect  his  feelings,  shall  he  have  no  regard  for 
mine?  If  my  science  is  blasphemy  to  him,  his  superstition 
is  blasphemy  to  me.  If  my  freedom  irritates  him,  his  bond- 
age to  a  book,  provokes  me.  Am  I  not  also  a  brother  and  a 
man?  Are  not  my  feelings  worth  considering,  too?  Sup- 
pose we  demanded  the  eviction  of  all  the  preachers  from 
churches  that  do  not  pay  taxes  but  live  on  the  charity  of  the 
public,  for  not  thinking  and  believing  as  Rationalists  do! 
How  would  the  clergy  like  that?  And  why  should  they  do 
to  us  what  they  do  not  wish  us  to  do  to  them  if  we  had  the 


When  my  Human  Prayer  appeared  in  print,  one  of  the 
Christian  clergymen — a  Lutheran  pastor — called  it,  "The 
Devil's  Prayer."  No  one  in  the  church  ever  thought  of  pro- 
testing against  his  language.  But  suppose  I  had  called  any 
clergyman's  prayer  "The  Devil's  Prayer,"  how  awfully  that 
would  have  shocked  and  wounded  the  feelings  of  the  Christ- 
ian world!  A  Christian  can  do  anything  he  pleases  with  my 
feelings,  but  I  am  a  blasphemer  and  should  be  deprived  of 
my  rights  of  free  speech,  if  I  should  hurt  his  feelings.  What 
better  proof  do  we  need  of  the  incapacity  of  the  theologically 
trained  mind  to  see  straight  ? 

It  has  reached  my  ears  from  more  than  one  source  that 
my  recent  Human  Prayer,  printed  side  by  side  with  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  each  signed  by  the  name  of  its  author, 
was  one  of  the  reasons  which  influenced  the  Orchestra  Hall 
trustees  to  refuse  us  their  hall  for  another  year.  Let  me  give 
the  prayer  as  it  appeared  on  our  Sunday  program : 

19 


THE  HUMAN   PRAYER. 

Our  Humanity  which  art  everywhere,  Beloved  be  thy 
name. 

Thy  reign  of  Reason  come,  Thy  gentle  Will  be  done 
in  this,  and  in  all  other  lands. 

We  give  unto  thee  this  day  our  daily  service. 

We  do  not  pray  for  forgiveness,  but  invoke  thine 
impartial  justice. 

Lead  us  in  the  ways  of  honor,  and  deliver  us  from 
meanness. 

The  welfare  of  Humanity  be  our  reward,  and  the 
consciousness  of  having  deserved  its  gratitude,  our  glory, 
forever.  Amen. 

What  is  there  in  the  above  prayer  to  make  it  "the  devil's 
prayer,"  or  to  provoke  persecution  against  us?  Mrs.  Eddy, 
in  one  of  her  writings,  quotes  from  the  New  Testament 
on  one  page,  signed  /.  C.,  meaning,  I  suppose,  Jesus  Christ; 
and  on  the  opposite  page  she  quotes  from  "Science  and 
Health,"  and  signs  it  Mary  Baker  G.  Eddy.  J.  C.  and  Mary 
Baker  G.  Eddy!  But  Mrs.  Eddy  burns  incense  upon 
the  church  altars,  and  I  do  not,  and  that  makes  all  the  dif- 
ference. But  I  tried  to  improve  on  the  Lord's  prayer — to 
make  it  broader,  sweeter,  and  nearer  the  heart's  desire,  and 
that  is  an  unpardonable  crime.  I  tried  to  see  further  than 
Jesus,  and  I  should  be  stricken  with  blindness  for  it.  I  tried 
to  speak  in  a  more  human  accent  than  Jesus,  and  the 
trustees  of  Orchestra  Hall  passed  a  resolution  to  gag  me 
for  it.  so  far  as  their  jurisdiction  would  permit.  Well,  if 
the  trustees  of  the  Orchestral  Association  feel  that  they 
must  protect  the  Lord's  prayer  against  the  prayer  of  a  mere 
layman,  they  must  think  that  it  cannot  stand  without  their 
support.  The  people  who  resort  to  force  to  maintain  a  re- 
ligion never  stop  to  think  that  thereby  they  are  only  ad- 
vertising their  unbelief  in  it.  Instead  of  fearing  competition, 
a  divine  religion  ought  to  invite  it.  Nor  do  the  persecutors 
realize  that  no  God  who  has  any  independence  at  all  would 
care  to  be  worshiped  by  an  unwilling  person. 

It  has  also  come  to  me  that  our  extensive  advertising 
of  the  lecture  Is  the  Morality  of  Jesus  Sound?  gave  great 
offense  to  the  Christian  public  of  Chicago.  The  resolution 
of  the  trustees  to  stop  our  meetings  in  Orchestra 

30 


Hall  followed  almost  immediately  the  appearance  of 
this  lecture.  Evidently,  the  church  people  think  Jesus 
is  beyond  criticism  or  comment,  which,  again  proves  our 
statement  that  the  believer  has  no  use  for  liberty.  But  our 
libraries  are  full  of  books  in  every  language  containing 
most  radical  statements  about  Jesus  and  his  teaching.  Why 
are  not  these  books  destroyed?  If  the  churches  had  their 
way  a  big  bonfire  would  be  made  out  of  all  books  not  en- 
dorsed by  the  Protestant  or  Catholic  bishop.  The  truth 
is  that  the  church  will  never  feel  safe  until  it  commands 
both  pen  and  tongue. 

But  does  persecution  help  the  cause  of  truth?  There  is 
an  impression  that  the  best  way  to  spread  a  truth  is  to 
persecute  it.  I  doubt  whether  history  will  verify  this  state- 
ment altogether.  The  death  of  Socrates  by  poison,  some 
have  argued,  destroyed  the  liberty  of  Greece.  It  compelled 
his  great  disciple,  Plato,  to  conform,  more  or  less,  to  the 
superstitions  of  the  populace.  It  scared  the  lesser  philoso- 
phers into  silence. 

Persecution  certainly  hurts  the  cause  of  progress.  If 
evolution  means  anything,  it  is  this :  There  is  no  progress 
where  the  environment  is  not  favorable  to  variations  from 
a  given  type.  In  other  words,  if  we  all  believed  alike,  and 
were  not  at  liberty  to  differ  from  one  another  mentally, 
there  would  be  an  end  to  progress.  The  object  of  the  forces 
of  nature  is  to  promote  variations  from  a  given  type.  The 
object  of  the  church  is  to  prevent  such  variations.  Hetero- 
geniety  is  what  nature  seeks.  Homogeniety,  or  sameness, 
is  what  the  churches  are  righting  for.  Death  is  uniform ; 
life  is  diverse.  The  creed  is  death ;  truth  is  life. 

But  the  persecution  also  hurts  the  persecutors.  If  the 
Protestants  and  Catholics  should  succeed  in  suppressing 
our  movement  altogether,  they  would  be  the  greater  losers. 
From  a  selfish  point  of  view  even,  the  Christians  should 
be  our  best  friends.  We  help  to  keep  them  awake.  We 
keep  them  on  the  alert.  We  help  to  ventilate  religion.  We 
give  it  air,  which  it  has  never  had,  and  without  which  it 
cannot  live.  We  remove  the  walls  and  tear  down  the  doors 
of  the  closet  in  which  the  churches  have  been  penned  up 
for  long-  centuries.  But  for  the  opposition  of  science  and 

21 


Rationalism,  the  grass  would  grow  in  the  church  aisles, 
and  the  creeds  would  become  mildewed  with  neglect.  Op- 
position provokes  orthodoxy  into  action,  and  action  is  sal- 
vation. We  sting  the  creeds  into  a  livelier  pace.  It  was 
to  counteract  our  influence  in  this  hall  that  the  Sunday 
Evening  Religious  Club  was  organized.  It  is  to  fight  Ra- 
tionalism that  revivalists  are  brought  over  from  abroad, 
and  new  activities  are  launched.  It  is  opposition  that  chal- 
lenges our  better  natures.  The  churches  need  us  to  sharpen 
their  wits  upon  and  keep  the  blood  tingling  in  their  veins. 
Even  as  in  politics  insurgency  helps  to  check  corruption 
in  the  party  in  power,  so  in  religion  opposition  by  rubbing 
mind  against  mind  evokes  the  spark  of  truth. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  heard  some  of  our  hesitating 
friends  remark  that  if  I  had  been  a  little  cautious  we  might 
have  remained  in  Orchestra  Hall  indefinitely.  But  to  be 
"a  little  cautious"  is  a  vague  phrase.  How  much  cau- 
tion would  satisfy  the  clergy,  for  instance?  And  how  much 
the  business  men  who  manage  this  public  hall?  Besides, 
I  may  just  as  well  argue  that  if  the  clergy  had  been  a  lit- 
tle more  cautious  in  their  preaching,  we  might  never  have 
left  the  churches.  But  the  preacher  must  be  true  to  his 
convictions,  and  the  lecturer  to  his.  If  any  caution  is  nec- 
essary, it  is  the  caution  to  tell  the  whole  truth  about  re- 
ligion. To  keep  some  of  it  back  would  be  the  worst  in- 
caution.  In  fact,  it  is  our  extreme  caution  to  be  consist- 
ent, to  make  no  slips  and  never  to  be  caught  napping,  that 
orthodoxy  does  not  like.  The  Unitarians,  the  New  Theo- 
logians and  the  insurgent  professors  in  the  universities  are 
tolerated  because  these  men,  now  and  then,  throw  a  pinch 
of  incense  on  the  altar  of  the  supernatural.  We  do  not 
even  tip  our  hats  to  the  gods. 

After  all,  it  is  difficult  to  change  nature.  Christianity 
is  Asiatic,  and  a  residence  of  two  thousand  years  in  Eu- 
rope and  America  has  had  little  effect  upon  it.  Renan 
writes  that  he  searched  in  vain  for  any  laws  of  religious 
persecution  in  the  Roman  Empire,  prior  to  the  introduction 
of  Christianity  into  Europe.  We  have  dressed  up  this  Asi- 
atic institution  in  Western  attire ;  we  have  taught  it  one 
or  two  polite  manners ;  we  have  smoothed  its  rugged  fea- 

22 


tures,  and  covered  its  paws  in  soft  gloves.  But  we  have 
not  changed  its  nature.  Let  a  man  inadvertently,  even, 
step  upon  its  toes,  and  all  its  barbarian  proclivities  will 
rush  to  the  surface.  Only  the  other  day,  in  Spain,  a  man 
by  the  name  of  Ferrer  poked  it  with  a  stick  and  he  got  his 
heart  filled  with  lead  for  it.  As  long  as  we  have  an  infallible 
religion  there  will  be  persecution. 

The  directors  of  this  hall  by  trying  to  suppress  the  lib- 
erties of  a  portion  of  the  community  of  this  cosmopolitan 
city  of  the  great  West,  have  injured  its  good  name.  They 
have  also  dishonored  the  free  institutions  of  America,  the 
latest  born  of  time,  to  whose  pleasant  and  peaceful  shores  the 
oppressed  of  every  land  look  with  longing.  They  have  for- 
feited the  friendship  and  gratitude  of  all  who  look  upon  liberty 
as  the  jewel  of  their  souls.  We  shall  not  change  our  religion, 
or  join  the  churches,  to  escape  eviction  from  this  building. 
We  give  up  the  hall,  and  keep  our  liberty. 

And  to  you,  my  friends,  you  who  have  maintained  this 
platform  for  many  years;  you  who  have  championed  an  un- 
popular cause — a  cause  which  is  now  being  driven  from  this 
great  hall  by  the  authority  of  laymen  acting  as  the  agents  of 
the  clergy — I  say :  As  long  as  you  shall  continue  to  think 
and  speak  your  best  thoughts  freely  and  without  fear — as 
long  as  you  live  up  to  your  highest  ideals,  and  hold  up 
your  heads  erect,  bowing  neither  to  priest,  king,  nor  God — 
"bigotry  shall  have  fingers  to  grasp  with,  but  no  thumb." 
If  I  were  on  my  death-bed,  my  last  word  to  you  would  be: 
"Suffer  not  bigotry  to  grow  a  thumb." 


NOTICE! 

The  only  hall  available  for  the  uses  of  the 
Independent  Religious  Society  next  year,  is  the 
Studebaker  Theatre,  Michigan  Ave.,  seating 
capacity  133O.  This  Is  about  one  half  the  size  of 
the  hall  we  now  occupy.  By  compelling  us  to  go 
to  a  smaller  hall,  the  churches  deprive  us  of 
nearly  one  half  our  audience. 

23 


THE  STORY  OF  MY  MIND 

HOW  I  BECAMEA  RATIONALIST 

Price,  Fifty  Cents 


fl  In  this  latest  publication  of  the  Independent  Religious 
Society,  M.  M.  Mangasarian  describes  his  religious  experience — 
how,  starting  as  a  Calvinist,  a  graduate  of  Princeton  Theolog- 
ical Seminary,  and  a  pastor  of  the  Spring  Garden  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Philadelphia,  he  thought  and  fought  his  way  up  to 

RATIONALISM 

<J  The  book  contains  a  dedication  to  "My  Children,"  in 
which  the  author  says  : 

"  I  am  going  to  put  the  story  in  writing,  that  you  may  have  it  with 
you  when  I  am  gone,  to  remind  you  of  the  aims  and  interests  for  which 
I  lived,  as  well  as  to  acquaint  you  with  the  most  earnest  and  intimate 
period  in  my  career  as  a  teacher  of  men." 


ORDER   THROUGH 

THE  INDEPENDENT  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY 

CHICAGO 


EARLIER  PUBLICATIONS  BY  MR.  MANGASARIAN 

A  New  Catechism.     Fifth  Edition,  Revised  and  Enlarged, 

with  Portrait  of  Author.    Price $1.00 

The  Truth  About  Jesus:    Is  He  a  Myth?    A  new  book  of 

295  pages.     Illustrated.     Cloth,  $1.00;  Paper $0.50 

Mangasarian-Crapsey  Debate  on  the  Historicity  of  Jesus. 

25c. 
Pearls.      (New    Edition.)      Brave    Thoughts    from    Brave 

Minds.    Selected  and  arranged  by  M.  M.  Mangasarian. 

25c.    Presentation  Edition,  limp  leather $1.00 

A  FEW  LECTURES— lOc  A  COPY 

Is  Life  Worth  Living  Without  Immortality? 

Is  the  Morality  of  Jesus  Sound? 

Rome-Rule  in  Ireland,  with  Postlude  on  Ferrer. 

How  the  Bible  Was  Invented. 

Morality  Without  God. 

Sent  postpaid  on  receipt  of  price.     Ask  for  complete  list. 

INDEPENDENT  RELIGIOUS  SOCIETY 
CHICAGO 


. 


sAUIBRARYflr       ^UIBRARYQr  .\tiNJNIVER$/A         ^lOS  ANCElfjl 

Mir: I  liifT*   fi~rl  f/or- 


1  I 

??    & 


g 
I    § 


^        <^lOS-ANCElfj)>  ^l-LIBRARY^       ^l-tlBRARYCJ 

%  I/Or*!    1 11(7 1  11  id 


w        ^lOS-ANHl^         ^ 

^    g /^V-*^      « 
p    £  A  *  n 


inrrl   l»»<rs  l/ 


Mill  INI  II  Mil  II 

000  022  99^ 


